Perhaps the 1992 system would have been fairer to chop off the median overs.

The majority of mathematical models for pricing etc. are aimed at determining the 'indifference' value at the present time. This seams to be the crux of the D/L system. Both teams should be indifferent to the revised target as they have been given a 'best fit' present value that is equivalent to the initial situation.

Perhaps the 1992 system would have been fairer to chop off the median overs.

The majority of mathematical models for pricing etc. are aimed at determining the 'indifference' value at the present time. This seams to be the crux of the D/L system. Both teams should be indifferent to the revised target as they have been given a 'best fit' present value that is equivalent to the initial situation.

This is the beauty of D/L. Time after time I've seen a rain delay, seen the revised target and thought, "fair enough"

Duckworth Lewis Discussion thread

Given the recent D/L situations in the Australia/New Zealand series, I think it would be interesting to have a bit of discussion regarding this 'score prediction' series.

In the 2nd ODI of the series, the NZ's total was reduced by 5 overs and 8 runs. In the 4th ODI, Australia's chase was reduced by 16 overs and 34 runs.

I have no idea how the system works. I have looked it up on Wikipedia and tried to make sense of it, but it is certainly not simple. Looking at the above reductions, they appear pretty unfair to the chasing side. What do you guys reckon?

I can see that it is somewhat reasonable in that chasing a score at a high run rate is easier over 20 overs than a score at a moderate run rate over 50 (if that makes sense), however I can't see how 5 overs for 8 runs really makes sense.

I would be interested to hear what the CW community thinks of the D/L system, if it is a bad system, what would be better?

WRT AlanJLegend, I think it reflects the fact that teams are getting better at chasing, and that with a known target one can better structure their innings. They can also afford to take more risks, as the loss of wickets may not be as important with less overs available to score.

Yes I think it is the fairest system available in the given cirucmstances. The fact that it is a bit boring to comprehend doesn't mean it is a wack job. It gives value to wickets held in hand at the time of cut off which I believe is a fantastic concept as compared to the silly maiden overs chop that existed during the 1992 World Cup.

I can see that it is somewhat reasonable in that chasing a score at a high run rate is easier over 20 overs than a score at a moderate run rate over 50 (if that makes sense), however I can't see how 5 overs for 8 runs really makes sense.

The 5 overs for 8 runs thing occurred because New Zealand had lost early wickets. Obviously losing early wickets is less relevant in a shorter chase as you have less time in which to use your resources, but they lost they wickets when they were still expecting to have 50 overs to play with, so the value of them had to be adjusted to fully reflect what had gone on. On the face of it, it does seem odd, but it does make sense.

It's hard to get your head around at first but once you fully understand how it works and why, you'll realise it's by far the best method and is generally very fair to both sides.

Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker

People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.

Originally Posted by GIMH

Freddie is the greatest cricketer ever so the fact these comparisons are being made means three things:

I think the 40-over and 50-over leagues that have played out in the UK over the last few years indicate the difference between innings of that length is negligible - par scores in the Pro40 have been virtually identical to the FP Trophy matches. Innings structure with wickets in hand, here at least, results in very similar end totals.

If we look at ODI v T20, a "good" first innings score (i.e. one you expect to win more often than not is, I'd imagine, 250). In a T20, you're probably feeling about the same for 160. That's a decrease of 30 overs (60%) vs a decrease of 90 runs (36% less). Someone else who doesn't need to go referee in three minutes can dig through Statsguru and find the exact 50-50 win-loss first innings scores, I'm sure, but I'd imagine they'll be in that range.

I think the 40-over and 50-over leagues that have played out in the UK over the last few years indicate the difference between innings of that length is negligible - par scores in the Pro40 have been virtually identical to the FP Trophy matches. Innings structure with wickets in hand, here at least, results in very similar end totals.

If we look at ODI v T20, a "good" first innings score (i.e. one you expect to win more often than not is, I'd imagine, 250). In a T20, you're probably feeling about the same for 160. That's a decrease of 30 overs (60%) vs a decrease of 90 runs (36% less). Someone else who doesn't need to go referee in three minutes can dig through Statsguru and find the exact 50-50 win-loss first innings scores, I'm sure, but I'd imagine they'll be in that range.

Resisting the temptation to dig into Statsguru, I'd suggest that a 'good' first innings total (not the same as a par score) at a top-level ODI (i.e. between two test-playing nations) is closer to 280. The batting powerplay in particular has seen a massive upsurge in 300+ scores.